5 ms·

> So as a free-speech absolutist, would you let anyone walk into a Starbucks and start shouting about anything they wanted? Starbucks is on private property.

> So as a free-speech absolutist, would you let anyone walk into a Starbucks and start shouting about anything they wanted? Starbucks is on private property. > Would it be okay for them to write a manifesto on the chalkboard next to the barista? The Starbucks chalkboard is privately owned. >Social Media is the same. Privately owned and can set their own standards. No it isn't. Anyone can log into Twitter and Facebook and see tweets and posts. They're public squares that are closely related to a mall rather than a private Starbucks location. > The internet has plenty of space for people to post their opinions on their own servers. Up until other big tech companies like CloudFlare decide they don't want to be associated with you and stop offering you ddos protection. > They are annoyed because if you take away social media, you make it harder for them to get an audience. Exactly! And that's why Twitter, Facebook, and Google should be treated as public squares. It's not fair that one group can access a public resource that others cannot.

Aachen 4y ago
I don't see how the heck my website is a public square but my home or café isn't, this argument sounds self-contradictory
- solarmist 4y ago
  Yup. This is the exact problem that we’re (as a society/world) wrestling with. The reason it is (not just seems) different is because of the scope. A message on a chalkboard cannot reach millions of people (without the internet), but it can on a website. That by itself distorts the public/private argument, but we as a society aren’t sure how or to what extent yet. These lawsuits are the second step (the first step was arguing about it in public) of figuring that out.
  - krapp 4y ago
    So, because any website can potentially reach millions of people, all websites must be considered public spaces and must be coerced to allow all legal speech? I honestly don't think it distorts the public/private argument, any more than MacDonald's serving billions of customers distorts the question of whether it's a private corporation or whether its scale transforms it into a public service. But the inevitable endgame of this is going to be the government regulating all speech on the internet, and most of the internet no longer allowing any kind of user content, and I don't think the free speech absolutists so willing to throw the baby of free speech out with the bathwater of consequence are going to like it.
    - solarmist 4y ago
      Yes and no, because we’ve seen society wide effects from this over the last 15-20 years. But all websites? To my knowledge, the only websites people agree on this are Facebook and Twitter. So probably probably not all websites, but that's one of the things that need to be worked out. When does a site reach a scale where it can no longer be treated solely as a private entity? What should happen then? How should we identify those sites? Then what? There are tons of people who agree with you, tons who don't, and tons in between. But the majority seem to be on the side that things can't stay the way they’ve been. The effects on society over the last 20 years are not good. I haven't seen much disagreement on that. No one can agree on what to do about it though. McDonald's is an interesting example because there are debates happening there too, but making people fat doesn't have cause the same visceral reaction as interfering with elections. Which government? This is a global issue. It's going to be a long painful process of screwing up then trying to fix it.
      - krapp 4y ago
        >McDonald's is an interesting example because there are debates happening there too, but making people fat doesn't have cause the same visceral reaction as interfering with elections. But no one is saying that, because of their scale and cultural influence, they have to be privatized and considered infrastructure. >Which government? I mean this is obviously an attempt by the US government to control speech on US web platforms, based on US politics since the election of the last President. The rest of the world seems to have settled the question of whether websites are allowed to moderate content, and it was a settled question in the US until a bit after 2016.
        solarmist 4y ago
        I’m not even saying that. My point was that when a company gets that large it has an undue amount of influence on public/private things and we as a society don’t know how to deal with that. I’m talking about things like banning trans fats from fast food or calories on menus. There are many levers you can pull beside the public/private switch. Yes this is US specific, but they’re far from the only ones planning to do something about it. I disagree that this is settled anywhere. We’re still trying to understand what’s been happening.
- evandale 4y ago
  Your website isn't a public square because you're the one publishing content to it. We're discussing the public platforms that Facebook, Twitter and Google run, and I don't consider those three companies as publishing the content they host.
  - jimmydorry 4y ago
    >We're discussing the public platforms that Facebook, Twitter and Google run, and I don't consider those three companies as publishing the content they host. Don't you consider it publishing when they express editorial control over what topics are allowed on their platform, without transparency or accountability of what the forbidden topics are at any given point of time? They also modify the user generated content and add labels and "fact checks" which are prominently displayed.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    They are not public platforms, though. Not anymore public than a Starbucks. Just because "the public" can walk through a store's unlocked doors doesn't make the place public property. Same with social media. Just because "the public" can log into the platform's system doesn't make the place public. Social media does, in my view, publish the content they host. It's not like the telephone, where you establish a direct connection to your audience and the mediator gets out of the way. When you post something to social media, there are three separate steps that happen: 1. You send the content to the SM company. 2. The SM company does some kind of processing on the content. 3. The SM company publishes that content (or not) somewhere on their site. These things happen pretty much instantaneously, but they are still happening. Posting to Social Media is more like writing a Letter to the Editor of the newspaper. They receive the letter, decide whether to include it in the paper, then include it in the paper.
    - inkblotuniverse 4y ago
      If twitter is a publisher, I should be able to sue them for what they publish, but I can't because of CDA 230. Are you in favor of repealing that law?
croes 4y ago
You can see the tweets and posts because a private company allows you to make an account, and even then you don't see all. That's like walking into a Starbucks and reading the chalkboard. Everybody who can enter can read it. Factual it's faster and easier to enter a Starbucks than creating an FB account. And like we all know if FB decides to ban your account you can nothing do about it. Doesn't sound like a public place to me
- nomdep 4y ago
  When a private place has 50 million users it clears that has become a “public place”. Think as if the subway was privately owned
  - croes 4y ago
    "In 2018, a Nielsen Scarborough survey found that over 37.8 million Americans visited a Starbucks (Statista, 2021) within the last 30 days." So Starbucks is now a public place? I don't think so.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      How many other people does an average Starbucks visitor interact with? Now consider the same for Facebook.
    - inkblotuniverse 4y ago
      Every starbucks is a different place. If there was a single building 50 million people freely walked into every day, I'd say that should be considered a public place.
    - Overtonwindow 4y ago
      You might want to read up on Starbucks "Third Place" policy.. They actually DO want to be a public place. "In the mid 90s Starbucks incorporated this philosophy into its retail design and business strategy: “We want our stores to be the third place' " https://www.mjvinnovation.com/blog/third-place-and-the-starbucks-empire-the-user-experience-at-the-heart-of-strategy/ https://www.mjvinnovation.com/blog/third-place-and-the-starb...
mikkergp 4y ago
> They're public squares that are closely related to a mall rather than a private Starbucks location. Just reading a book on malls, in America, they are mostly privately owned and are absolutely famous for rigid policing.
- bombcar 4y ago
  The decision in discussion explicitly references a California case where the mall owners were forbidden from kicking out some leafleting teenagers.
quadrifoliate 4y ago
> Anyone can log into Twitter and Facebook and see tweets and posts. They're public squares that are closely related to a mall rather than a private Starbucks location. Okay, so the mall is a better analogy. But it still doesn't mean I can do anything I want at a mall. If I run in there and start shouting slogans at passers-by, I am going to be removed by mall security "for my viewpoint" because it's bad for business. And no, there isn't a list at the mall saying precisely what kinds of crazy behavior you're not allowed to bring in. It's hard for me to see how Twitter isn't the same.
anigbrowl 4y ago
> No it isn't. Anyone can log into Twitter and Facebook and see tweets and posts. They're public squares that are closely related to a mall rather than a private Starbucks location. Fine. Nationalize them, remove all advertising, open up all the source code and infrastructure, and let open cyberwarfare commence.
themitigating 4y ago
Anyone can walk into walmart , does that make it a public space not a private company? "Starbucks is on private property." So are servers where data is stored

Aachen 4y ago

I don't see how the heck my website is a public square but my home or café isn't, this argument sounds self-contradictory

solarmist 4y ago
Yup. This is the exact problem that we’re (as a society/world) wrestling with. The reason it is (not just seems) different is because of the scope. A message on a chalkboard cannot reach millions of people (without the internet), but it can on a website. That by itself distorts the public/private argument, but we as a society aren’t sure how or to what extent yet. These lawsuits are the second step (the first step was arguing about it in public) of figuring that out.
- krapp 4y ago
  So, because any website can potentially reach millions of people, all websites must be considered public spaces and must be coerced to allow all legal speech? I honestly don't think it distorts the public/private argument, any more than MacDonald's serving billions of customers distorts the question of whether it's a private corporation or whether its scale transforms it into a public service. But the inevitable endgame of this is going to be the government regulating all speech on the internet, and most of the internet no longer allowing any kind of user content, and I don't think the free speech absolutists so willing to throw the baby of free speech out with the bathwater of consequence are going to like it.
  - solarmist 4y ago
    Yes and no, because we’ve seen society wide effects from this over the last 15-20 years. But all websites? To my knowledge, the only websites people agree on this are Facebook and Twitter. So probably probably not all websites, but that's one of the things that need to be worked out. When does a site reach a scale where it can no longer be treated solely as a private entity? What should happen then? How should we identify those sites? Then what? There are tons of people who agree with you, tons who don't, and tons in between. But the majority seem to be on the side that things can't stay the way they’ve been. The effects on society over the last 20 years are not good. I haven't seen much disagreement on that. No one can agree on what to do about it though. McDonald's is an interesting example because there are debates happening there too, but making people fat doesn't have cause the same visceral reaction as interfering with elections. Which government? This is a global issue. It's going to be a long painful process of screwing up then trying to fix it.
    - krapp 4y ago
      >McDonald's is an interesting example because there are debates happening there too, but making people fat doesn't have cause the same visceral reaction as interfering with elections. But no one is saying that, because of their scale and cultural influence, they have to be privatized and considered infrastructure. >Which government? I mean this is obviously an attempt by the US government to control speech on US web platforms, based on US politics since the election of the last President. The rest of the world seems to have settled the question of whether websites are allowed to moderate content, and it was a settled question in the US until a bit after 2016.
      - solarmist 4y ago
        I’m not even saying that. My point was that when a company gets that large it has an undue amount of influence on public/private things and we as a society don’t know how to deal with that. I’m talking about things like banning trans fats from fast food or calories on menus. There are many levers you can pull beside the public/private switch. Yes this is US specific, but they’re far from the only ones planning to do something about it. I disagree that this is settled anywhere. We’re still trying to understand what’s been happening.
evandale 4y ago
Your website isn't a public square because you're the one publishing content to it. We're discussing the public platforms that Facebook, Twitter and Google run, and I don't consider those three companies as publishing the content they host.
- jimmydorry 4y ago
  >We're discussing the public platforms that Facebook, Twitter and Google run, and I don't consider those three companies as publishing the content they host. Don't you consider it publishing when they express editorial control over what topics are allowed on their platform, without transparency or accountability of what the forbidden topics are at any given point of time? They also modify the user generated content and add labels and "fact checks" which are prominently displayed.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  They are not public platforms, though. Not anymore public than a Starbucks. Just because "the public" can walk through a store's unlocked doors doesn't make the place public property. Same with social media. Just because "the public" can log into the platform's system doesn't make the place public. Social media does, in my view, publish the content they host. It's not like the telephone, where you establish a direct connection to your audience and the mediator gets out of the way. When you post something to social media, there are three separate steps that happen: 1. You send the content to the SM company. 2. The SM company does some kind of processing on the content. 3. The SM company publishes that content (or not) somewhere on their site. These things happen pretty much instantaneously, but they are still happening. Posting to Social Media is more like writing a Letter to the Editor of the newspaper. They receive the letter, decide whether to include it in the paper, then include it in the paper.
  - inkblotuniverse 4y ago
    If twitter is a publisher, I should be able to sue them for what they publish, but I can't because of CDA 230. Are you in favor of repealing that law?

croes 4y ago

You can see the tweets and posts because a private company allows you to make an account, and even then you don't see all. That's like walking into a Starbucks and reading the chalkboard. Everybody who can enter can read it. Factual it's faster and easier to enter a Starbucks than creating an FB account. And like we all know if FB decides to ban your account you can nothing do about it. Doesn't sound like a public place to me

nomdep 4y ago
When a private place has 50 million users it clears that has become a “public place”. Think as if the subway was privately owned
- croes 4y ago
  "In 2018, a Nielsen Scarborough survey found that over 37.8 million Americans visited a Starbucks (Statista, 2021) within the last 30 days." So Starbucks is now a public place? I don't think so.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    How many other people does an average Starbucks visitor interact with? Now consider the same for Facebook.
  - inkblotuniverse 4y ago
    Every starbucks is a different place. If there was a single building 50 million people freely walked into every day, I'd say that should be considered a public place.
  - Overtonwindow 4y ago
    You might want to read up on Starbucks "Third Place" policy.. They actually DO want to be a public place. "In the mid 90s Starbucks incorporated this philosophy into its retail design and business strategy: “We want our stores to be the third place' " https://www.mjvinnovation.com/blog/third-place-and-the-starbucks-empire-the-user-experience-at-the-heart-of-strategy/ https://www.mjvinnovation.com/blog/third-place-and-the-starb...

mikkergp 4y ago

> They're public squares that are closely related to a mall rather than a private Starbucks location. Just reading a book on malls, in America, they are mostly privately owned and are absolutely famous for rigid policing.

bombcar 4y ago
The decision in discussion explicitly references a California case where the mall owners were forbidden from kicking out some leafleting teenagers.

quadrifoliate 4y ago

> Anyone can log into Twitter and Facebook and see tweets and posts. They're public squares that are closely related to a mall rather than a private Starbucks location. Okay, so the mall is a better analogy. But it still doesn't mean I can do anything I want at a mall. If I run in there and start shouting slogans at passers-by, I am going to be removed by mall security "for my viewpoint" because it's bad for business. And no, there isn't a list at the mall saying precisely what kinds of crazy behavior you're not allowed to bring in. It's hard for me to see how Twitter isn't the same.

anigbrowl 4y ago

> No it isn't. Anyone can log into Twitter and Facebook and see tweets and posts. They're public squares that are closely related to a mall rather than a private Starbucks location. Fine. Nationalize them, remove all advertising, open up all the source code and infrastructure, and let open cyberwarfare commence.

themitigating 4y ago

Anyone can walk into walmart , does that make it a public space not a private company? "Starbucks is on private property." So are servers where data is stored